Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry
Date: 2023-12-20 15:33:42
Message-ID: 20231220153342.GA833819@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:02:58AM +0200, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> In that case, maybe change the test case to make it closer to real-life
> usage - with locks and concurrent access (See attachment)?

I'm not following why we should make this test case more complicated. It
is only intended to test the DSM registry machinery, and setting/retrieving
an atomic variable seems like a realistic use-case to me.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tristan Partin 2023-12-20 15:39:55 Re: Unchecked strdup leading to segfault in pg_dump
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-12-20 14:52:56 Unchecked strdup leading to segfault in pg_dump